Supreme Court is right on Westboro Baptist case

It's hard to defend Westboro Baptist Church, the hateful fundamentalist lawyer cult that pickets fallen soldiers' funerals with "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" signs. But their freedom to express themselves offensively is one thing our servicemen fight for.

The Westboro clowns have been clever enough to avoid violence, to avoid specific names in their picket signs and, in the case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court this week, to stand back 1,000 feet from the 2006 Maryland funeral of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who died in Iraq.

I consider Westboro Baptist's words hateful, but the truth is, none of us can read minds and hate can't be outlawed anyway. Past public protests that have looked patently hateful and widely offensive made bigger, more helpful points than the obnoxious media they employed. So it's best we protect freedom of expression that does not directly threaten or incite violence.

As many say, the answer to offensive free speech is more free speech. The best response to the rude Westboro clan is to stand next to them with signs that point out how silly they are.

Frank Warner

Comments

[Neo]

The SCOTUS was wrong because this was a tort between private parties, therefore not involving the government, except the courts, making this not a 1st amendment case.
The SCOTUS set a bad precedent where regarding torts between private parties.

[Frank Warner]

Hmmm. But I don't think the Constitution stops where torts begin. If the Westboro clowns' expressions are protected by the First Amendment, they're protected from civil suits.

The big question was whether the Westboro "speech" was intended privately against one person or one family, or whether it was aimed at a public matter of debate. Eight of the nine justices decided it was generally a public matter.

[Kevin]

"I consider Westboro Baptist's words hateful, but the truth is, none of us can read minds and hate can't be outlawed anyway."

Now if only the courts would outlaw 'hate crimes' for the same reason.

[CJW]

Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger on Tuesday provided more details of his bill to limit protests at military funerals.

The legislation would prohibit protests for the 5 hours preceding a military funeral and the 5 hours after. Protests before or after those limits could be held no closer than 2,500 feet from the funeral facility.

Dutch proposes limits on funeral protests

[jj mollo]

I really had trouble swallowing this decision, but I guess it's right. One question I have is whether the church members made factual statements which were objectively untrue and caused harm to specific individuals. Could they be sued in that case? If I say Donald Trump steals from widows and orphans, do I get away with it simply because he is running for office? How about if I accuse John Particular Doe, who is relatively anonymous? Do I get away with it if his name has appeared in the newspaper, or if he represents an example of a particular class I am objecting to?

[Frank Warner]

Generally, the Supreme Court has said it is almost impossible to libel a public figure, someone who has intentionally invited celebrity. On top of that, there is abundant case law that you can't libel the dead.

But with a few exceptions, the Westboro lawyer cult has been careful not to make clear who the hell they're mocking.